Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 1 | Darwin’s Nightmare 1. Title, director and release year Darwin’s Nightmare | Hubert Sauper | 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? Darwin’s Nightmare is a film that centers on Tanzania’s fish export from Lake Victoria, yet the true focus of the movie is much more than that. Director Hubert Sauper follows the lives of several local Tanzanians, as well as some of the pilots who fly the fish out of the country, in an effort to persuade the public of the enormous ramifications the fish industry has on this country in Africa. Death and disease, famine, homelessness, and extreme measures these humans are forced to take are frighteningly portrayed. Director Sauper fights to tell these individuals’ stories, showing the world the social and political consequences of something as seemingly small as the fish export business.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Darwin’s Nightmare is a film which addresses many sustainability problems, although some of them may not be as close to the surface as others. One obvious sustainability program the film draws out is economic. While the fish industry exports nearly 55 tons of fish per day, the local Tanzanians are starving to death. Furthermore, drought problems are causing a decline in rice production, one of the only foods the locals can afford to eat. Even if there was fish available for the locals to buy, however, they would not be able to afford it. A clip from a news station during the movie estimated that 17 million US dollars in aid would be needed to begin feeding the people of Tanzania.
Another major sustainability problem drawn out by the film is ecological. The perch that is currently being exported from Lake Victoria is not a fish native to that body of water. While not much information was given on the fishes’ introduction, it was introduced to the lake around the 1960s. Since then, the perch has killed off many native species, with estimates of around 210 vanished species. Without this biodiversity, the oxygen levels are falling in the lake, killing off even more fish. Perch also eat their own young, so even this voracious species may become extinct. The disappearance of all of the fish from Lake Victoria would certainly have ecological consequences, as well as cultural influences. Culturally, the locals depend on the fish export as their way of life. With no fish left to harvest, many of the fishermen and their families could starve to death. Many would become refugees as there would be no reason to remain at Lake Victoria any longer without food or work.
While there are still many smaller sustainability problems, the final major problem is political. The fishing industry is no longer locals fishing for their own gain, but is run by a large corporation. The National Fisheries Institute is also in the area, with a guard who is paid $1 per night to guard the Institute with poisoned arrows. When interviewing the head of the fishing corporation, he claimed that the fish industry was doing well, and that it would be too expensive to feed the locals as opposed to exporting the fish to the European Union. Politically, the government does not step in to help the people, while it allows 55 tons per day of fish to be shipped to the EU, where 2 million white people eat Victorian fish every day. Yet two governments must be involved for the exchange to take place. This brings out the question, is the EU government equally responsible as the Tanzanian government for the cruelties arising from the fish trade? While the political ramifications were not largely covered in the film, it still raises many of these interesting questions.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the dialogue with the characters was some of the most compelling footage. I was especially drawn to Eliza’s story, as she was so greatly affected by the fish trade in such an indirect way. The fish pilot’s account was persuasive as well. Hearing him talk about how he missed his family and how he had to work to support them made you realize that he is not a bad person with the intentions of hurting the Tanzanian people, but rather an individual simply working to provide for his own family back home. As Director Sauper quoted in his director’s statement, “It seems that the individual participants within a deadly system don't have ugly faces, and for the most part, no bad intentions. These people include you and me.” [1]. I believed this was the most compelling part of the film for me, to remember that every problem that gets generalized in the media is actually affecting individuals like me, and that the individuals who run these corporations may not do so with evil in their hearts, even if that is the reality of what occurs. The film’s strength for me lay in its ability to relate the viewer to the individual, to recognize the problem on a variety of levels.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
While I was strongly compelled by the relation to the individuals in the film, I was not as convinced by the lack of scientific information. I thought the small section they showed about the Ecological Congress in Kenya could have been much more compelling than it was. The film never really addressed these political and ecological concerns on a scale that is conducive to convincing someone of the breadth of the issues. I was also slightly taken aback by the scenes where they would interview some of the young, orphaned children. While it helped to show the magnitude of the problems, it somehow seemed worse to interview these young children than the other adults in the film. Many of the children seemed scared to even speak to the camera, and yet they continued to push them to tell their terrible stories. The children were certainly compelling in their own way, but for me I feel it pushed some of the issues a little too far. I don’t feel that is a criticism of the film so much as a criticism of our culture and the way we have learned to deal with our issues.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film made me raise some questions about the initial cause of this spiraling problem. I would like to find out more about the introduction of the perch to Lake Victoria, as they only briefly mentioned the fish being introduced to the pond around the 1960s, without really covering any details. I believe this one action could then be a link to the matrix of issues that the film brings up. I think knowing the details of the perches’ appearance in the lake would allow you to draw connections between a seemingly simple biological addition and the escalating variety of effects it has caused.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe that Darwin’s Nightmare is targeted toward audiences in the first-world countries who may not be aware/try to ignore the problems going on in many third-world countries. It also probably addresses college-age students and younger adults by trying to reach out to them. I believe it makes viewers imagine what life might be like if they were not raised in such a privileged state, and also to imagine the outrage that would happen if something similar were occurring in their own country. I’m not sure that the film will change viewers actions about environmental problems, but I do believe it would force them to consider more ethical questions about what is going on and possibly what they could do to help. They may also come away, as I did, beginning to realize what large effects such small causes, such as introducing a foreign fish, may have.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Unfortunately, Darwin’s Nightmare did not suggest many points of intervention or give viewers too many ways to help. I believe the film was more focused on sharing these people’s stories and giving them a voice, and less focused on the political aspects of the issues. More than anything else, the film seems to captivate people’s attention to the topic and connect them with the problems so they may try to help in their own way. It didn’t end with a list of organizations to donate money to or a person to contact, but it raised awareness and mesmerized audiences. It also emphasized the fact that there is no easy way to fix these problems.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe more scientific information on the introduction of the perch to Lake Victoria would have enhanced the environmental educational value quite a bit. I was very interested in the clip they showed of the video played during the Ecological Congress in Kenya, which began to touch on this topic. However, it did not give too many details, and it was also shown late in the movie. Understandably, the film focused more on the story and less on scientific research, but possibly a little more solid information in the beginning could have helped to better understand the issues at hand throughout the film’s entirety.
1. Title, director and release year
Darwin’s Nightmare | Hubert Sauper | 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Darwin’s Nightmare is a film that centers on Tanzania’s fish export from Lake Victoria, yet the true focus of the movie is much more than that. Director Hubert Sauper follows the lives of several local Tanzanians, as well as some of the pilots who fly the fish out of the country, in an effort to persuade the public of the enormous ramifications the fish industry has on this country in Africa. Death and disease, famine, homelessness, and extreme measures these humans are forced to take are frighteningly portrayed. Director Sauper fights to tell these individuals’ stories, showing the world the social and political consequences of something as seemingly small as the fish export business.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Darwin’s Nightmare is a film which addresses many sustainability problems, although some of them may not be as close to the surface as others. One obvious sustainability program the film draws out is economic. While the fish industry exports nearly 55 tons of fish per day, the local Tanzanians are starving to death. Furthermore, drought problems are causing a decline in rice production, one of the only foods the locals can afford to eat. Even if there was fish available for the locals to buy, however, they would not be able to afford it. A clip from a news station during the movie estimated that 17 million US dollars in aid would be needed to begin feeding the people of Tanzania.
Another major sustainability problem drawn out by the film is ecological. The perch that is currently being exported from Lake Victoria is not a fish native to that body of water. While not much information was given on the fishes’ introduction, it was introduced to the lake around the 1960s. Since then, the perch has killed off many native species, with estimates of around 210 vanished species. Without this biodiversity, the oxygen levels are falling in the lake, killing off even more fish. Perch also eat their own young, so even this voracious species may become extinct. The disappearance of all of the fish from Lake Victoria would certainly have ecological consequences, as well as cultural influences. Culturally, the locals depend on the fish export as their way of life. With no fish left to harvest, many of the fishermen and their families could starve to death. Many would become refugees as there would be no reason to remain at Lake Victoria any longer without food or work.
While there are still many smaller sustainability problems, the final major problem is political. The fishing industry is no longer locals fishing for their own gain, but is run by a large corporation. The National Fisheries Institute is also in the area, with a guard who is paid $1 per night to guard the Institute with poisoned arrows. When interviewing the head of the fishing corporation, he claimed that the fish industry was doing well, and that it would be too expensive to feed the locals as opposed to exporting the fish to the European Union. Politically, the government does not step in to help the people, while it allows 55 tons per day of fish to be shipped to the EU, where 2 million white people eat Victorian fish every day. Yet two governments must be involved for the exchange to take place. This brings out the question, is the EU government equally responsible as the Tanzanian government for the cruelties arising from the fish trade? While the political ramifications were not largely covered in the film, it still raises many of these interesting questions.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the dialogue with the characters was some of the most compelling footage. I was especially drawn to Eliza’s story, as she was so greatly affected by the fish trade in such an indirect way. The fish pilot’s account was persuasive as well. Hearing him talk about how he missed his family and how he had to work to support them made you realize that he is not a bad person with the intentions of hurting the Tanzanian people, but rather an individual simply working to provide for his own family back home. As Director Sauper quoted in his director’s statement, “It seems that the individual participants within a deadly system don't have ugly faces, and for the most part, no bad intentions. These people include you and me.” [1]. I believed this was the most compelling part of the film for me, to remember that every problem that gets generalized in the media is actually affecting individuals like me, and that the individuals who run these corporations may not do so with evil in their hearts, even if that is the reality of what occurs. The film’s strength for me lay in its ability to relate the viewer to the individual, to recognize the problem on a variety of levels.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
While I was strongly compelled by the relation to the individuals in the film, I was not as convinced by the lack of scientific information. I thought the small section they showed about the Ecological Congress in Kenya could have been much more compelling than it was. The film never really addressed these political and ecological concerns on a scale that is conducive to convincing someone of the breadth of the issues. I was also slightly taken aback by the scenes where they would interview some of the young, orphaned children. While it helped to show the magnitude of the problems, it somehow seemed worse to interview these young children than the other adults in the film. Many of the children seemed scared to even speak to the camera, and yet they continued to push them to tell their terrible stories. The children were certainly compelling in their own way, but for me I feel it pushed some of the issues a little too far. I don’t feel that is a criticism of the film so much as a criticism of our culture and the way we have learned to deal with our issues.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film made me raise some questions about the initial cause of this spiraling problem. I would like to find out more about the introduction of the perch to Lake Victoria, as they only briefly mentioned the fish being introduced to the pond around the 1960s, without really covering any details. I believe this one action could then be a link to the matrix of issues that the film brings up. I think knowing the details of the perches’ appearance in the lake would allow you to draw connections between a seemingly simple biological addition and the escalating variety of effects it has caused.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe that Darwin’s Nightmare is targeted toward audiences in the first-world countries who may not be aware/try to ignore the problems going on in many third-world countries. It also probably addresses college-age students and younger adults by trying to reach out to them. I believe it makes viewers imagine what life might be like if they were not raised in such a privileged state, and also to imagine the outrage that would happen if something similar were occurring in their own country. I’m not sure that the film will change viewers actions about environmental problems, but I do believe it would force them to consider more ethical questions about what is going on and possibly what they could do to help. They may also come away, as I did, beginning to realize what large effects such small causes, such as introducing a foreign fish, may have.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Unfortunately, Darwin’s Nightmare did not suggest many points of intervention or give viewers too many ways to help. I believe the film was more focused on sharing these people’s stories and giving them a voice, and less focused on the political aspects of the issues. More than anything else, the film seems to captivate people’s attention to the topic and connect them with the problems so they may try to help in their own way. It didn’t end with a list of organizations to donate money to or a person to contact, but it raised awareness and mesmerized audiences. It also emphasized the fact that there is no easy way to fix these problems.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe more scientific information on the introduction of the perch to Lake Victoria would have enhanced the environmental educational value quite a bit. I was very interested in the clip they showed of the video played during the Ecological Congress in Kenya, which began to touch on this topic. However, it did not give too many details, and it was also shown late in the movie. Understandably, the film focused more on the story and less on scientific research, but possibly a little more solid information in the beginning could have helped to better understand the issues at hand throughout the film’s entirety.